I'm deeply disturbed by the tone of the comments here in general, as people seem to be missing the problem.
The problem is that the government and health care institutions have a conflict of interest in euthanasia.
A citizen that is costly to you? Wouldn't it be convenient if they disappeared? Wouldn't it be even better if they believed this was in their own best interests?
I think a legitimate argument can be made that in many of these cases, Canada is simply killing its citizens rather than try to provide services, and essentially blaming it on the citizens or fate.
I'm a huge supporter of assisted suicide. I believe it's a fundamental form of autonomy. But I also believe that people can be in positions where they are incapable of offering informed consent, and also strongly believe those in a position to assist cannot be in a place to assist in deciding. There needs to be a firewall in between. Probably a step further, in that there needs to be someone openly arguing against euthanasia as a matter of course, to ensure there is an advocate for that position.
Think of it this way. Let's say a person is mentally incapable of consenting — they have a severe cognitive disability, or are a child. They are falsely accused by the state of a capital offense, because it unethically benefits the state (eg, to protect corrupt police). If they convince the accused of their guilt, does it make ethically acceptable? What if the accused is capable of consent, but is lied to and brainwashed about their guilt, and manipulated into believing they are guilty?
In those cases, doesn't it still make sense to have a legal advocate for their innocence?
How is that fundamentally different?